Drug offenders steered into treatment programs instead of jail under provisions set by Proposition 36 in 2000 were more likely to be rearrested for drug-related crimes than defendants who went through non-Prop. 36 treatments, according to a study released today.

UCLA researcher David Farabee said that Prop. 36 participants were 48 percent more likely to be rearrested for drug-related crimes within a year of starting treatment.

Prop. 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, places first- and second-time nonviolent drug offenders into county-supervised drug treatment programs instead of jails and prisons. Its supporters argued in 2000 that incarceration without rehabilitation only worsened the drug epidemic and that inmates often developed harsher drug habits.

Farabee's research tracked participants of the Prop. 36 drug rehabilitation programs over the first six months of the law's implementation, from July to December 2001.

His findings show recidivism rates for Prop. 36 participants were even worse (65 percent more) when compared with the noncriminal cases of people who entered treatment voluntarily, or without the involvement of the criminal justice system.

Farabee said the gap in recidivism rates might be attributed to under treatment. Seventy-five percent of Prop. 36 participants with severe drug problems were placed in outpatient programs instead of more intensive residential care, compared with 71 percent for non-Prop. 36 criminal cases and 56 percent for noncriminal cases.

The findings were based on data collected by the state's Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. It compared the cases of 688 Prop. 36 participants with 1,178 non-Prop. 36 clients and 1,882 noncriminal clients who underwent treatment in 43 programs in 13 counties around the state, including San Francisco, Alameda and San Mateo.

In his findings, Farabee drew no conclusions as to the overall effectiveness of Prop. 36.

"There were limitations to the study," said Farabee. "It wasn't designed to measure what's happened beyond the first six months. All we know is that there was a difference in arrest rates."

Prop. 36 remains controversial four years after it was passed by 61 percent of the voters. Opponents, including many law enforcement officials, say there are better ways to spend the $120 million the state appropriates annually to counties to run their programs. Proponents point to the thousands of drug offenders, many entering a rehabilitation program for the first time, who successfully complete treatment.

"The first six months doesn't really give an indication of what's happened with Prop. 36," said Appel, who wrote an opposing commentary to Farabee's findings, which were published today in Criminology and Public Policy. "Many of the counties hadn't even gotten their programs off the ground. "

Appel points to another UCLA study that was released in September as proof that Prop. 36 is working. The study covers up to June 30, 2003, through the end of the program's second year, but it contains no information on recidivism rates.

"The important thing to note is that 66,000 were treated during the first two years, and half of them received treatment for the first time," said Appel.

Some Bay Area officials say Prop. 36 has been a bust.

San Mateo County District Attorney James Fox said the drug courts that were in place before Prop. 36 were more effective in dealing with drug offenders. Fox added that his office had long suspected that Prop. 36 participants had higher rearrest rates, but it does not keep records to back up the claim.

Jeff Rubin, deputy district attorney for Alameda County, said resources for the program were stretched thin, and he estimated that Alameda's yearly $5 million share of state funding was about $30 million short to successfully run its programs.

"It's like taking a dose of penicillin that will cure one person and spreading it out to 10 people," Rubin said. "It doesn't cure anybody."